Pokie tax one for the greedy middle class

The entertaining spectacle of the stoush between Bob Carr and John Singleton over club poker-machine taxes should not detract from the importance of the conflict for democratic government in this state. If Carr is forced to back down on the decision to increase the Government take, it will prove that wealthy lobbyists have more power in the state than they should have.

If the clubs finance a political campaign at the next state election in 2007 and defeat the NSW Government, thus bringing the Liberals to power, they will be doing so openly and before the people, and this they are entitled to do. But it is doubtful whether the Liberals will want to be seen as the tool of the club movement, however much they want victory - the electorate is unlikely to be persuaded to vote Liberal on such grounds.

The clubs could form their own political party and run candidates who would direct their preferences against the Government, or particular candidates. This could help the Liberals get over the line, or force a Government backdown before the election.

Just what the electorate thinks about the pokie tax issue is not at all clear. There are many beneficiaries of the poker machine profits at present.

Let me take one registered club as an example, the Balmain Leagues Club, which I believe to be well and honestly run. In the financial year ending last October, only a derisory amount of the gross poker machine revenue of $12 million (rounded) was spent on community support ($404,000), and not a particularly impressive sum on the associated football club ($2.2 million).

By far the bulk of the gross revenue of the club went on running the club - debt servicing, depreciation, etc, and most importantly, wages and other staff costs ($5.1 million).

In other words, the members (membership costs virtually nothing) and users of the club enjoy most of the benefits. They know that they pay for them mainly through the pokies, and they seem to enjoy the atmosphere of vulgar opulence surrounding the gambling devices.

If they are mad enough to gamble away much of their income at these places, that is their own business - even if we agree it would be better if they did not. This often has bad social consequences, and I am one of those who believe that it would have been better if governments had never gone down the path of encouraging poker machines as a source of tax revenue.

But as a well-off non-smoker and non-gambler I am a major beneficiary of the billions poured by the poor into the poker machines, in clubs and pubs. The taxes on the machines, to the extent that they go into public health and similar facilities, benefit me.

Why shouldn't the low-income club users enjoy luxurious facilities and 24-hour service paid for out of the money they throw at the machines? That is to say, when the Government proposes to increase the tax on club poker-machines, it is taking money from the poor, and condemning them to lower standards of service and accommodation, to lighten the tax burden on the middle classes.

Meanwhile the inner urban dwellers have plenty of access to other entertainment venues (pubs, cinemas, cafes, and so on), so they rarely use clubs. Indeed, they sneer at them.

So it is not at all surprising that the Left faction of the NSW Labor Party, largely constituted of the greedy middle class, should support higher taxes on the clubs. The extra take will pay for their cheap health services and other goodies, like turning Callan Park into a free leisure facility for themselves. But the outer suburbs and regions are likely to rise in revolt at this mean-minded attack on their own few leisure and entertainment venues. This is the greatest threat to Labor's hold on state government.

Note: Last week I erroneously wrote that the sceptical environmentalist Bjorn Lomborg would not be speaking on any university campus. This was based on the itinerary for his speeches which I had seen, but subsequently the University of Queensland agreed to allow him to speak at its main St Lucia campus. It was originally reluctant to do so because such a lecture would be "controversial and divisive". Under pressure, however, permission was granted. It remains to be seen whether the lecture will be disrupted by the usual mob of fascists of the left.